6 replies to this topic

[Pintac]

Michael

I just noticed that IP.Board 3.0 Compatible? would need to be added to the description of files for downloads.

 ScreenShot001.jpg   16.61K   28 downloads

[Michael]

Yeah, I actually wanted to think of a new way to do that. Will leave this topic here unresolved until I find a better solution.

[Pintac]

How about a multi-select box with just a title of comparability?

[Michael]

The only options are 'text input', 'dropdown box', and 'text area'.

What I was thinking was making each application have specific dropdowns like what we have now. So if you are looking at an IP.Board resource, there are the dropdowns for compatibility with each major IP.Board version. And similar ones for the different apps the resources are designed for. Is that too complicated, or should I instead go for a simple text input like IPS?

[Pintac]

If you went the way that IPS has it, the Author can type in multiple requirements such as IP.Bord 3.1.x & Gallery 4.0.x, etc. But if you changed to that route, would it throw off the current files submitted?

I think the way you have it now is great.

Maybe keep it the way you have it with the drop downs for each resource and add the text input as "Additional Compatibility". This way if a file is submitted in the gallery, they can select the appropriate gallery version but then type in a board version.

[Adriano]

Why don't you create separated categories for each version, like 3.0.X, 3.1.X and now 3.2.X.. it gives some work but it's the best way to users use it.

[Michael]

I added a new dropdown for IP.Board 3.2 for just the IP.Board products. For the others, should I maybe just add a single text field where you can type in the compatibility? IP.Board files are far more common, so we want those to be very accurate, the others probably don't need as much detail.